Trump's pick to be acting Attorney General does not qualify under the law

Separation of powers only apply to meddling BETWEEN the 3 branches of government.

The DOJ is a Cabinet/Department level organization under the President. Like the DOD, etc.
The FBI, DEA, BATFE, etc are Agency level organizations under the President & their specific Cabinet level Department

All of which are under the President, as chief executive of the Executive Branch.

There is no law preventing him from taking over the DOJ/FBI (or any other ABC organization) nor is there any law preventing him from discharging them
at will or appointing them at will. This is why new FBI special agents can be appointed at will. It is also why they can be discharged at will.

Their contracts say "terminated for cause." However, that is merely employment law which determines whether an individual is eligible for benefits
after termination or whether they get nothing but a boot to the curb.

It is NOT the DOJ/FBI's duty to arrest and prosecute violators of US law. That is actually the President, who is charged with "Enforcing and executing
laws of the Union." The POTUS then appoints these agents (an agent is simply a person authorized to act on another's behalf) who carry out HIS lawful
Constitutional function

The FBI, just as an example, was never defined in the Constitution. It is entirely an invention of past Presidents who needed more manpower to enforce
the ever growing USC (which is disgustingly and insultingly large)

The Special Counsel led my Mueller is not legal either.
I guess the rules have been changed - by idiots who couldn't take losing the 2016 election.

Well two judges have said it is..including the conservative Ellis.

Several judges also tried to stop the President's travel ban too. Unfortunately we live in a time of divide. The only thing to look at is the actual
law.

That law states clearly that a SC can be appointed when a “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.”
We can talk all day about what constitutes evidence, but Rosenstein himself said, quote, “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been
committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination."

The Special Counsel led my Mueller is not legal either.
I guess the rules have been changed - by idiots who couldn't take losing the 2016 election.

Well two judges have said it is..including the conservative Ellis.

Several judges also tried to stop the President's travel ban too. Unfortunately we live in a time of divide. The only thing to look at is the actual
law.

That law states clearly that a SC can be appointed when a “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.”
We can talk all day about what constitutes evidence, but Rosenstein himself said, quote, “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been
committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination."

There is no debate. The appointment did not follow the statute.

Your right there is no debate. It was completely legal or judge Ellis would have stopped the prosecution of Manafort.

It was actually Rosenstien who overstepped his authority under the Appointment's clause and the law governing special counsels.

It requires the President OR a Senate Confirmed AG to appoint a SC. The law has NO CONCEPT of recusal. There was a Senate Confirmed AG who was more
than capable of making the appointment, yet non-Senate confirmed Rosenstein illegally appointed Mueller without having the authority to do so.

Regardless none of that matters now. The President has exercised his authority to take control of Mueller's probe. He didn't opt to do so directly,
and instead appointed someone with a reasonable view on the matter. Time for Mueller to pony up his evidence, and when none materializes, time to send
him and his team packing. Not back to their old jobs either.

Their clearances should be administratively revoked to ensure they are never given a position of trust/security clearance ever again.

Fact is, you don't know Matt wasn't given a promotion to Deputy AG a micro-second before he was appointed Acting AG. You simply do not know that.

Further, much like declassification, the President doesn't have to follow any formal procedure when appointing these folks. He can do it on Twitter,
in person, verbal only or even mentally. The law doesn't define how those non-confirmed individuals are to be appointed.

...but I still haven't seen anything more than mere norms or policy. Certainly no one has pointed to the relevant entry in the USC showing where this
was unlawful.

Oh Oh Spaghetti Ohs 😆

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen today announced
an Interim Final Rule declaring that those aliens who contravene a presidential suspension or limitation on entry into the United States through the
southern border with Mexico issued under section 212(f) or 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) will be rendered ineligible for
asylum.

AG Sessions specifically stated that he didn’t resign, he was asked to resign which means he was fired and the PVA doesn’t apply

Requested or not, he resigned. If he refused to resign, then he would be fired, but the technicality is that letter of resignation. He
resigned.

Thus the term constructive discharge. "You are fired if you don't resign" is constructive discharge.

Wrong, constructive discharge is when a workplace is made intolerable by the employer. Sessions' letter shows no indication of the sort, and actually
shows he enjoyed the employment.

His resignation was requested, not forced, not compelled by intolerable work conditions, simply requested. He didn't refuse, and didn't make any
claims of workplace hostility/intolerability which would be a cause for constructive discharge, therefore it is a resignation.

I'm not saying the Court won't rule the AG succession law supersedes it. I'm saying there is nothing "illegal" about the current situation. It's
ambiguous. That happens alot because we have a lot of stupid or poorly written laws in the country.

The President/DOJ are exercising power they believe is granted by the VRA for the next 210 days. Until someone on a bench says, "No, it doesn't" or
issues a stay pending that ruling, they can/will continue to exercise that authority.

We also have the problem of a forced resignation. The purpose of the restriction is so a president can't install an AG to destroy an investigation.
And I am not even talking about Mueller though that is also an issue with witaker having made prior written statements.

It's very possible the court will see sessions statement and equate that with a firing which happens all the time to HR departments.

You are confusing the legal benefit and obligations by terms of employment with what the courts view as being terminated.

Advisors serve at the President's pleasure even at the cabinet level. He is free to fire anyone at anytime. To create constructive discharge you'd
have to show an underlying legal claim -- ie, he was forced out illegally. It isn't illegal to simply ask for a resignation. Nor was he forced to
resign. Like Yates, he had the option of being fired and chose to resign.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.